[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 18:06:02 +0000
From: Anjali Kulkarni <anjali.k.kulkarni@...cle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"zbr@...emap.net" <zbr@...emap.net>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"johannes@...solutions.net" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"socketcan@...tkopp.net" <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
"petrm@...dia.com" <petrm@...dia.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] netlink: Reverse the patch which removed filtering
> On Apr 3, 2023, at 1:50 PM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 02:32:19 +0000 Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> Who are you hoping will merge this?
>> Could I request you to look into merging the patches which seem ok to
>> you, since you are listed as the maintainer for these? I can make any
>> more changes for the connector patches if you see the need..
>
> The first two, you mean? We can merge them, but we need to know that
Yes, even perhaps the first 3:-), since the third one has bug fixes which looked ok to you?
> the rest is also going somewhere. Kernel has a rule against merging
> APIs without any in-tree users, so we need a commitment that the
> user will also reach linux-next before the merge window :(
Yes, sounds right.
>
> Christian was commenting on previous releases maybe he can take or just
> review the last 4 patches?
Sounds fine too. I hope Christian can review these.
Anjali
Powered by blists - more mailing lists